Posted!

Join the Conversation

Comments

Welcome to our new and improved comments, which are for subscribers only.
This is a test to see whether we can improve the experience for you.
You do not need a Facebook profile to participate.

You will need to register before adding a comment.
Typed comments will be lost if you are not logged in.

Please be polite.
It's OK to disagree with someone's ideas, but personal attacks, insults, threats, hate speech, advocating violence and other violations can result in a ban.
If you see comments in violation of our community guidelines, please report them.

The four Republicans running for Congress in Wisconsin’s 6th District are falling all over themselves about term limits.

The issue surfaced when State Rep. Duey Stroebel released a column on Monday, indicating general support for the idea of Congressional term limits.

Not willing to let a generality ride when specifics might gain political points, State Sen. Glenn Grothman issued a same-day response indicating he would serve no more than 10 years in the post if elected. Stroebel then said he has no intention of serving more than 10 years if elected.

State Sen. Joe Leibham, apparently averse to round numbers, decided that he would cap his service at 12 years if he gains the position.

Tom Denow of Oshkosh said he also supports term limits, but did not specify a time frame.

The candidates are seeking to replace Tom Petri, who represented the 6th District for the past 35 years. Petri didn’t subscribe to term limits, other than the one he is self-imposing with his pending retirement.

This is political theater of the absurd. The candidates seem more content to upstage one another rather than engaging in a serious dialogue about the relative merits of term limits. Their statements this week also lock them into an unenviable position for any member of Congress — the need to keep their word.

By seeking so quickly to return Stroebel’s volley, the candidates put their party in the tenuous position of needing to replace a potentially popular candidate in the future. Political predictions are generally even less accurate than weather forecasts, but the term limit pronunciations could hamstring the GOP down the road, something no true Republican desires.

It is a very real possibility, given the district’s tendency to vote Republican. Petri had little serious opposition in more than three decades of service.

The take-home lesson is that candidates — of any party — should think first and react later. The term limit statements are now out there for the world to see and hear — and cyberspace to recall. There is no taking them back.

The candidates likely will say they have no regrets in calling for their own term limits. They offered very little, however, in the way of reasons other than generalities about Petri having been in office too long. The entire episode smacks of reactive thinking and political opportunism.

Term limits are, after all, popular with voters. Many are weary of the partisan bickering in a Congress seemingly dominated by “career” politicians who have plied its halls for many years. That in itself doesn’t necessarily make term limits a good idea, and many other factors weigh into the discussion of its pros and cons.

These candidates by all appearances did not weigh those factors. Instead, they jumped on a bandwagon that began rolling driven by popular opinion toward an unknown destination.

Now they are stuck on that bandwagon with little chance to steer from a course so quickly and blindly set.